just gotta say that I do love how you guys (VN) get out here and get dirty, and if you feel that the torsional stiffness test told you the same as your posterior over the road, then i will take your word that it's a worthy test, theoretical objections be damned!

I'm just going to nick off into the shop to make paper maiche airfoils for my round tube bike now. .

Your still thinking about what YOU think is the right way to use and test a bike. But there remains the issue that not every one's use is the same. YOU may feel bikes should be tested with two bottles but maybe some people only ever ride with one 24 ounce frame mounted bottle and that gets them through rides up to 50 miles and that's all they ever do. Or a person who rides with a bottle in their jersey. Or...Or...Or...

So imagine you get your way and a test is done with 2 frame mounted bottle, but then what if one company designs their bike for a seat tube bottle only, one for a down tube bottle only and one for both? Lots of guys only need 1 bottle to race with and al of a sudden they have doubts about the test protocol. So a test with both bottles may not apply to them. Or a test with a bottle in the wrong location, i.e. I race with a bottle only on the downtube. It starts demonstrating the question of when do aerodynamics matter, when racing, or all the time?

In terms of time trial bikes, it gets even more baffling. Because riders have many more options and requirements. Bottles mounted horizontally between the aerobars, front end hydration, various rear end hydration systems, aero shaped bottles, distances from 12 miles to 112 miles for the bike leg. If I saw an aero test of time trial bikes with two round bottles I would consider it inapplicable to me. I would never race, even an Ironman with two round frame mounted bottles. With my speed concept I'll most likely come up with a system for one normal bottle in between my extensions and one aero bottle on the frame for up to HIM; and an additional aero bottle for up to IM.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's hard to say, all testing should include ________. Because there is no standard way to use a road bike.

false. it's not this subjective world many configurations. the vast vast vast majority of racing and riding takes place with two bottles. Therefore, road bikes (not TT bikes) should be test with two bottles. Which bottles? Which cages? Standard steel cages with standard 16oz bottles. Largest producer of bottles? Specialized I suspect. So use their standard 16oz bottle.

Your still thinking about what YOU think is the right way to use and test a bike. But there remains the issue that not every one's use is the same. YOU may feel bikes should be tested with two bottles but maybe some people only ever ride with one 24 ounce frame mounted bottle and that gets them through rides up to 50 miles and that's all they ever do. Or a person who rides with a bottle in their jersey. Or...Or...Or...

So imagine you get your way and a test is done with 2 frame mounted bottle, but then what if one company designs their bike for a seat tube bottle only, one for a down tube bottle only and one for both? Lots of guys only need 1 bottle to race with and al of a sudden they have doubts about the test protocol. So a test with both bottles may not apply to them. Or a test with a bottle in the wrong location, i.e. I race with a bottle only on the downtube. It starts demonstrating the question of when do aerodynamics matter, when racing, or all the time?

In terms of time trial bikes, it gets even more baffling. Because riders have many more options and requirements. Bottles mounted horizontally between the aerobars, front end hydration, various rear end hydration systems, aero shaped bottles, distances from 12 miles to 112 miles for the bike leg. If I saw an aero test of time trial bikes with two round bottles I would consider it inapplicable to me. I would never race, even an Ironman with two round frame mounted bottles. With my speed concept I'll most likely come up with a system for one normal bottle in between my extensions and one aero bottle on the frame for up to HIM; and an additional aero bottle for up to IM.

I'm just trying to demonstrate that it's hard to say, all testing should include ________. Because there is no standard way to use a road bike.

false. it's not this subjective world many configurations. the vast vast vast majority of racing and riding takes place with two bottles. Therefore, road bikes (not TT bikes) should be test with two bottles. Which bottles? Which cages? Standard steel cages with standard 16oz bottles. Largest producer of bottles? Specialized I suspect. So use their standard 16oz bottle.

there. done. now on to the testing

But, but...what if I mainly race crits that last less than 1 hour and I don't take ANY bottles with me? Don't I want to know which frame is fastest WITHOUT the bottles? (are you starting to see the problem yet? )

Wheels? Probably more so than the frame - especially if they are light wheels, as the spin-up/acceleration from the turns would be enhanced.

Unless you are thinking you'll take a flyer off the front and lap the field - and have your break actually hold, an aero bike won't do you that much better than sitting in the pack and racing intelligently.

Wheels? Probably more so than the frame - especially if they are light wheels, as the spin-up/acceleration from the turns would be enhanced.

Unless you are thinking you'll take a flyer off the front and lap the field - and have your break actually hold, an aero bike won't do you that much better than sitting in the pack and racing intelligently.

See the problem?!

If you want to win, you're going to need to hit the front at some point.

Besides, who says all crits come down to a field sprint? Only sprinters think like that. "Racing intelligently" for an individual might mean making sure it doesn't come down to a field sprint...and ANYTHING aero will help in that regard.

But, you're missing the point anyway...

edit: BTW, you might want to spend some "quality time" calculating how much power is required to "spin up" slightly heavier wheels in an acceleration as compared to the rest of your bike and you, along with compared to the aero drag increase upon speeding up. You'll quickly realize your speculation about lighter wheels "accelerating" better might not be so accurate...

Yes, you're completely right. This guy wouldn't have been able to win without an aero frame. He spent plenty of time at the front. And he's old, too. That certainly is a knock against him.Oh, wait.

And this guy.... he didn't spend time at the front, but it did come down to a bunch sprint. Good thing he was using an aero frame. Oh... wait.

and this guy.... This f*cker totally dominated on the most aero bike in the peloton.

Oh.... wait, nope. Those frames have square tubes.

But yes, you're completely right. That aero frame will guarantee you a win, it's totally worth the extra money. Clearly no one has ever dominated in a crit, off the front, without an aero frame. And water bottles in a crit? Jesus that's totally going to slow you down - especially if you're taking long flyers off the front and nearly lapping a field without getting any pulls. Good thing this guy is wearing a skin suit too... I mean, shit, a non-tight jersey will totally make any athlete get caught by the pack in no time.

You're being silly. You could give a top team steel frames with box rims and Rival parts and they'd still win races. That wouldn't mean that's the best possible choice. The only thing which will stop them from winning is using stuff which breaks.

I finally got around to making a plot of an adjusted result, which I show in terms of CdA difference, where I converted the Masi/Fulcrum into a Masi/Zipp 404 using the average of the improvements seen in the Cervelo and the Ridley when they had Zipps replace their Fulcrums.

The aero frame advantage in the test, relative to the Masi, is fairly consistent across the yaw range, with the exception of the Felt for which the result is curious.

Each 0.01 difference in CdA is an approximate 1% difference in speed on a flat, smooth road.

You're being silly. You could give a top team steel frames with box rims and Rival parts and they'd still win races. That wouldn't mean that's the best possible choice. The only thing which will stop them from winning is using stuff which breaks.

It may have been silly but it's actually a good illustration of the biggest gain you can make to the aerodynamics of your road bike in a road race. Notice how none of the riders doing the sprint finishes have any water bottles in? They have all turfed them a couple of km's out from the finish. That single change on a road race bike is worth more than any aero frame.

So, until I see test results with two bidons onboard to compare to no bidons on board then aero tests aren't worth the paper they are written on. There is too much dirty air going on around a road bike to make aero tests meaningful.

TT's different story. Still should be tested with a UCI legal bidon though.

Who is online

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum